Chickenpox Lollipops

[Aeson]

Because in one case you're assuming another sentient being that uses their will to subjugate ours. I find that rather repellant.

Why do you care if what is influencing you is sentient or not? It's the same influence either way.

[kentonio]

Obvious there is another determining factor besides the physical laws. Right? What simpler explaination than God?

Simpler? Are you being serious? Have you never stopped to think how insanely complex a being such as God would have to be to create something as complex as the universe?

Oh and we, a species that exist on a single planet in a universe of trillions of planets, and who have only existed for a blink of the eye in the history of our own world are 'made in his image' and are supposedly so damn important? Does none of this strike you even for a second as, say a teeny bit arrogant?

Why do you care if what is influencing you is sentient or not? It's the same influence either way.

One feels like slavery the other feels like just life.

[Elok]

The reason I like religious threads however, is because they touch on stuff that is genuinely interesting, like the implications of everything being predictable. It's just a shame that too many religious folk feel the need to cry like *****es every time anyone says anything that may question their beliefs. If you truly believe in God, then don't you think he's big and tough enough to get by without you getting butt hurt on his behalf?

A number of reasons, in no particular order and speaking only for myself:

1. The arguments often begin with bad faith on one or both sides. Given a lack of genuine interest in understanding the other's POV, they turn into insult matches before they even properly start.
2. Even when they begin in good faith, frustration accumulates rapidly from the basic difference between the ways theists and atheists view the universe. Not to mention the different priorities we have.
3. The basic underpinning of one's view of the universe is a touchy subject, and when the fight inevitably turns ugly I don't want to find myself insulting somebody like Guy, Cort Haus or Lori whom I genuinely respect.
4. Your side of the argument is more or less unified. Ours is atomized, with every believer on here belonging to a different creed and having different reasons for belief. It's much less fun from that perspective, since we often end up fighting each other.
5. It's frustrating for me personally because everyone is accustomed to Western Christianity, and argues against or for that. We think along very different lines in my church.
6. Atheists insist on grounding everything in the empirically verifiable. This, in effect, makes the argument impossible for our side (see 2). It puts us at a disadvantage from the get-go, since much of what makes us believe is highly subjective. I, at least, don't think that invalidates it in any sense, though of course I don't expect you to believe based on my experience.
7. Arguments tend to induce anger, bitterness and dislike. It's kind of bad to engender those feelings in the name of something that says to shun them.

[kentonio]

3. The basic underpinning of one's view of the universe is a touchy subject, and when the fight inevitably turns ugly I don't want to find myself insulting somebody like Guy, Cort Haus or Lori whom I genuinely respect.

I don't really get why it needs to be seen as something touchy. I used to be religious, now I'm not, I've never felt like I was being insulted when someone questioned me about things I believe. Why is it seen as an insult, when someone says 'I don't see the logic in that, please explain'?

4. Your side of the argument is more or less unified. Ours is atomized, with every believer on here belonging to a different creed and having different reasons for belief. It's much less fun from that perspective, since we often end up fighting each other.

I think the uniformity of athiests is a huge misunderstanding on the part of the religious. We have one uniform agreement, that we don't believe in god(s). That still leaves the whole 'then what the hell is going on' stuff to fill up in other ways.

. Arguments tend to induce anger, bitterness and dislike. It's kind of bad to engender those feelings in the name of something that says to shun them.

Discussion does not need to become argument though. There is a pretty proud history of religious theological debate after all.

[Kidlicious]

You don't have any explaination for things at all, so yeah, if you did have one mine would be much simpler. Anyway, you aren't really being objective in this thread. Stop claiming it.

[kentonio]

You don't have any explaination for things at all, so yeah, if you did have one mine would be much simpler. Anyway, you aren't really being objective in this thread. Stop claiming it.

Please explain how I'm not being objective? I've asked you several times you explain why you think certain things, or how certain things make sense to you, and you've ignored it every time. I frequently change my mind on things when I hear new arguments or information that is more compelling than what I currently know. You seem to just resort to flinging insults around and sticking your fingers in your ears if people don't agree with you.

[Aeson]

One feels like slavery the other feels like just life.

Now take it to the point where you don't know which (if either) it was. Can you feel that difference?

[Elok]

I don't really get why it needs to be seen as something touchy. I used to be religious, now I'm not, I've never felt like I was being insulted when someone questioned me about things I believe. Why is it seen as an insult, when someone says 'I don't see the logic in that, please explain'?

Often these questions

1. Are not phrased so politely, and
2. Stem from a refusal to see things from our perspective, or ask us to answer the unanswerable. E.G., "why would God do X?" Beats me, I'm not God and He never said. I'm comfortable with that. You're not. How do we get around the impasse?

And yes, arguments from my POV can insult unbelievers. For example, I think morality is meaningless in the absence of the supernatural. A substantial number of people became quite indignant when I proposed that back in the day, no matter how delicately I tried to phrase it (more than one thought I was saying all atheists are immoral, or something along those lines). Eventually, I stopped trying.

EDIT: I should add that, of the number of atheists who were not offended, most reacted the same way I react to many atheist arguments: some variation on "Eh, I guess that's true. Who cares?"

I think the uniformity of athiests is a huge misunderstanding on the part of the religious. We have one uniform agreement, that we don't believe in god(s). That still leaves the whole 'then what the hell is going on' stuff to fill up in other ways.

You're uniform for the purposes of an argument about religion, and generally you're grounded on the same assumptions. Most of which we don't share, leading to invalid arguments from our POV. For example, your argument about God necessarily being more complex than the universe. Well, what of it? Simplicity being desirable is a tenet of the scientific worldview, not the religious, and there's no reason why the laws of the created should apply to the creator. My belief in God has nothing to do with a desire to explain the causes of the universe. I'm a profoundly incurious human being that way. I'm content to know that I'm here.

Discussion does not need to become argument though. There is a pretty proud history of religious theological debate after all.

Generally not on the internet.

EDIT: Also, it generally wasn't all that polite back in the day, either. Even when we weren't burning each other. I haven't read Luther myself, but I'm told he comes from the scatological school of rhetoric.

[Kidlicious]

I'm only going to give you one example, but there's more. When I said it was a determining factor, you said "no it's an influencing factor." They ares the same thing. You just gave a fake argument.

[kentonio]

Now take it to the point where you don't know which (if either) it was. Can you feel that difference?

Nope, it's only when we start to theorize on it that the distinction appears.

I'm only going to give you one example, but there's more. When I said it was a determining factor, you said "no it's an influencing factor." They ares the same thing. You just gave a fake argument.

We'd been talking about pre-determination and then you threw in 'determining factor'. I read that as a continuation of your pre-determination stuff. If you meant it as influencing or contributing factor then my apologies for misreading it.

[kentonio]

Often these questions

1. Are not phrased so politely, and
2. Stem from a refusal to see things from our perspective, or ask us to answer the unanswerable. E.G., "why would God do X?" Beats me, I'm not God and He never said. I'm comfortable with that. You're not. How do we get around the impasse?

We probably don't, but if people can avoid feeling insulted at least theres potential for interesting debate.

And yes, arguments from my POV can insult unbelievers. For example, I think morality is meaningless in the absence of the supernatural. A substantial number of people became quite indignant when I proposed that back in the day, no matter how delicately I tried to phrase it (more than one thought I was saying all atheists are immoral, or something along those lines). Eventually, I stopped trying.

That one usually makes my heckles go up, but its primarily because it is regularly used as a shallow attack rather than as a real discussion point. When its an honest question or view, its actually quite fascinating, when it's just a jab thats usually followed by 'Stalin and Hitler were athiests' (which isn't even true in Hitlers case) then it just gets insulting.

EDIT: Also, it generally wasn't all that polite back in the day, either. Even when we weren't burning each other. I haven't read Luther myself, but I'm told he comes from the scatological school of rhetoric.

They had their battles, but for centuries the church was the natural home of the intelligensia.

[Aeson]

Nope, it's only when we start to theorize on it that the distinction appears.

See, it doesn't appear for me. I get to choose to care about it or not... regardless of why I do

[Imran Siddiqui]

As soon as you have a god who either intervenes or has a plan or plays any part in humanities goings on, then free will becauses nonsensical.

I don't see why, unless you have a Calvinist sort of God who leaves no room for people to do anything they wish according to their own whims. A God who allows for His creation to do what they wish, but intervenes every once in a while and speaks to His Creation to try to guide them (which they can reject) still upholds free will. You can always ignore God when He's speaking - heck, many people do.

It is like the others have said, if you have a deterministic universe just based on physics and biolology, what's the real point of free will? It is here where I think Issac Asimov's "Foundation" series shines.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A number of reasons, in no particular order and speaking only for myself:

1. The arguments often begin with bad faith on one or both sides. Given a lack of genuine interest in understanding the other's POV, they turn into insult matches before they even properly start.
2. Even when they begin in good faith, frustration accumulates rapidly from the basic difference between the ways theists and atheists view the universe. Not to mention the different priorities we have.
3. The basic underpinning of one's view of the universe is a touchy subject, and when the fight inevitably turns ugly I don't want to find myself insulting somebody like Guy, Cort Haus or Lori whom I genuinely respect.
4. Your side of the argument is more or less unified. Ours is atomized, with every believer on here belonging to a different creed and having different reasons for belief. It's much less fun from that perspective, since we often end up fighting each other.
5. It's frustrating for me personally because everyone is accustomed to Western Christianity, and argues against or for that. We think along very different lines in my church.
6. Atheists insist on grounding everything in the empirically verifiable. This, in effect, makes the argument impossible for our side (see 2). It puts us at a disadvantage from the get-go, since much of what makes us believe is highly subjective. I, at least, don't think that invalidates it in any sense, though of course I don't expect you to believe based on my experience.
7. Arguments tend to induce anger, bitterness and dislike. It's kind of bad to engender those feelings in the name of something that says to shun them.

Amen!

Especially #2. Theists and Atheists just view the world in vastly different ways. They start from different viewpoints and end in different areas. It is almost impossible to get them on the same plane.

[Hauldren Collider]

Isn't #6 rather explicitly admitting your wrongness?